14 F.4th 91
1st Cir.2021Background
- Rivera, a USPS maintenance mechanic, was injured on the job in 2005 and thereafter received OWCP (FECA) and SSDI benefits; claimants had to file periodic CA-1032 forms reporting work and volunteer activities.
- Rivera had an extensive history of union activity with the American Postal Workers' Union (APWU), including paid/reimbursed work, visits to union/USPS HQ, serving on an election committee, and assisting coworkers with compensation and EEO matters.
- In 2013 OIG investigated Rivera and, in an undercover interview on Aug. 8, 2013, he completed a CA-1032 denying work/volunteer activity for the prior 15 months; earlier CA-1032s (June 25, 2012 and June 25, 2013) also denied such activity.
- Rivera was indicted on three §1001 false-statement counts (three CA-1032s), one count of theft of government property (18 U.S.C. §641/642) for SSDI payments, and one count under 42 U.S.C. §408(a)(4) for failing to disclose work to SSA; a jury convicted on all counts.
- District court sentenced Rivera to three years probation and ordered restitution to SSA of $4,139.80; Rivera appealed, raising sufficiency of the evidence, exclusion of proffered mitigating evidence, Guidelines loss calculation, and restitution amount.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Rivera) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for §1001, §641, §408 convictions | Rivera: lacked knowing falsity and materiality on CA-1032s; lacked intent to steal or conceal to SSA | Govt: evidence of prior experience, warnings on forms, payments/reimbursements, undercover denials, and prior SSA application omissions supported knowledge, materiality, and fraudulent intent | Affirmed — viewing evidence in light most favorable to verdict, a reasonable jury could find knowledge, materiality, and intent beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Exclusion of evidence that USPS/OWCP/SSA "knew" or failed to prevent fraud | Rivera: wanted to show agency knowledge/inaction to negate culpable state of mind | Govt: such evidence risks blame-shifting and juror confusion; limited probative value | Affirmed — district court acted within discretion under Rule 403 to exclude testimony (questions about HR manager Delgado) as more misleading than probative |
| Guidelines loss calculation (intended loss = face value of benefits totaling ~$899k; 14-level enhancement) | Rivera: enhancement and intended-loss figure excessive and improperly included amounts outside indictment timeframe | Govt: per Alphas, face value is a permissible starting point for intended loss where claims rife with fraud; burden shifts to defendant to prove legitimate portions | Affirmed — court reasonably used face value as starting point; Rivera did not rebut to show legitimate amounts; relevant conduct rule permits broader temporal consideration |
| Restitution amount ($4,139.80 to SSA) | Rivera: restitution should exclude amounts SSA would have paid absent concealment; government failed to show but-for causation for full amounts | Govt: SSA application history (2005 denial when work disclosed; 2007 approval after omission) and instructions support that concealment caused payments during the charged period | Affirmed — district court limited restitution to actual loss for offenses of conviction and reasonably concluded SSA payments in the charged period were attributable to Rivera's concealment |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Paz-Alvarez, 799 F.3d 12 (1st Cir. 2015) (apply sufficiency review viewing evidence in light most favorable to verdict)
- United States v. Vázquez-Soto, 939 F.3d 365 (1st Cir. 2019) (elements required for conviction under 18 U.S.C. §1001)
- United States v. Alphas, 785 F.3d 775 (1st Cir. 2015) (face value of claims can be starting point for loss; burden shifts to defendant to show legitimate amounts)
- United States v. Maldonado–García, 446 F.3d 227 (1st Cir. 2006) (waiver principles for Rule 29 sufficiency motions)
- United States v. Innarelli, 524 F.3d 286 (1st Cir. 2008) (restitution requires actual loss; intended loss not appropriate for restitution)
- United States v. González-Calderón, 920 F.3d 83 (1st Cir. 2019) (restitution must have a rational basis in the record)
- Torres-Arroyo v. Rullán, 436 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2006) (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary exclusion under Rule 403)